b;: 

8971 

i'      ' 

.C8 

B43 

1904 

CVxAva^    \-n  -tne.    U.S.A. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


.« 


Presented   by    pTe.a\Ae-Y^^  Ta^lo^ 


BX  8971  .C8  B43  1904 
Cumberland  Presbyterian 
Church. 
Reasons  why  the  Cumberland 


F   '/ 


Bfli,etiin  No.  l 


REASONS  WHY 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  and 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 

States  of  America  Should  Be  United. 


Published  by 
The. Voluntary  Committee  on  Union  Information. 


S.  M.  Templeton,  D.D.,  Clarksville,  Texas,  Chairman. 

Ira  IjAndrith,  LL.D.,  809  Association  Building,  Chicago,  111.,  Corre- 
sponding Secretary. 

John  M.  Gaut,  Attorney-at-Law,  Steger  Building,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  Edi- 
torial Secretary. 

John  H.  DeWitt,  Attorney-at-Law,  Cole  Building,  Nashville,  Term., 
Treasurer. 

Rev.  I.  D.  Steele,  Pastor  First  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church,  Bir- 
mingham, Ala. 

Rev.  C.  E.  Hayes,  Synodical  Superintendent  of  Church  Extension,  De- 
catur, 111. 


Besides  the  foregoing  members  of  the  Executive  Committee,  there 
is  an  active  general  committee  composed  oi  one  member  in  each  Synod 
and  three  in  each  Presbytery,  304  in  all.     Following  are  the 

SvNODicAL  Representatives. 

.\i-abama — Rev.  B.  G.  Mitchell,  A.M.,  Huntsville,  Ala. 
.\rkansas — F.  R.  Earle,  D.D.,  Cane  Hill,  Ark. 
Ilmnoxs — W.  T.  Ferguson,  D.D.,  Charleston,  111. 
Indiana — Rev.  M.  L.  Gillespie,  Martinsville,  Ind. 
Indianoi.a — Hon.  W.  G.  D.  Hinds,  South  McAlester,  I.  T 
Iowa — Rev.  R.  L.  Vannice,  Waukon,  Iowa. 
Kan.sas — R.  M.  Tinnon,  D.D.,  Denver,  Colo. 
Kentucky — J.  S.  Grider,  D.D.,  Smith's  Grove,  Kv. 
Missouri — B.  P.  Fullerton,  D.D.,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
Ohio — Rev.  J.  G.  Miller,  West  Chester,  Ohio. 
Oregon — Rev.  E.  N.  Allen.  Portland,  Ore. 
Pacific — Rev.  W.  J.  Fisher,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Pennsylvania — Rev.  .J.  G.  Patton,  Ph.D.,  Wa.shinciton,  Pa. 
Tennessee — John  M.  Gaut,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
Texas — Rev.  J.   Frank  Smith,  Dallas,  Tex. 
Order  literature  from 

John  M.  Gaut,  Steger  Building,  Nashville,   Tenn 

N.B. — Where  practicable  enclose  a  sum  equal  to  two  cents  for  each 
pamphlet  ordered,  thus  assisting  the  committee  in  meeting  the  large  ex- 
pense of  printing  and  po.stage. 

Liberal  contributions  for  the  general  work  of  the  Committee  are  here- 
by solicited,  and  should  be  sent  to  the  Treasurer. 


Correspondence   on   other   subjects  may   be     addressed    to    either    the 
Corresponding  Secretary  or  the  Chairman. 


EXPLANATORY. 

The  Voluntary  Committee  on  Union  Information  is  com- 
posed of  gentlemen  who  believe  that  every  Cvmiberland  Pres- 
byterian is  entitled  to  all  of  the  facts,  and  that  when  all  the 
facts  are  known  the  adoption  of  the  plan  of  union  will  be 
by  a  practically  unanimous  vote  of  the  presbyteries.  This 
committee  came  into  being  because,  although  there  was  a 
general  demand  for  such  an  organization,  everybody's  busi- 
ness is  nobody's,  and  somebody  had  to  volunteer.  The  com- 
mittee will  be  true  to  its  first  official  announcement :  "Noth- 
ing will  be  published  by  us  which  is  designed  to  reflect  upon 
either  the  intelligence  or  the  integrity,  or  to  question  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  motives  of  our  brethren  who  are  honestly  op- 
posed to  our  views.  It  is  well  known  that  these  brethren  have 
had  for  some  time  an  organized  bureau  of  information,  and 
have  been  exercising  their  unquestioned  right  to  publish  their 
opinions  with  the  purpose  of  securing  adherence  thereto.  The 
committee  will  do  nothing  at  any  time  concerning  which  the 
entire  church  shall  not  be  taken  into  our  full  confidence.  Per- 
fect candor  and  the  utmost  possible  publicity  shall  characterize 
everything  we  attempt,  and  neither  the  criticisms  of  opponents 
nor  the  zeal  of  friends  shall  influence  us  to  do  what  is  unfair 
or  unfraternal,  nor  deter  us  from  doing  anything  which  truth 
and  righteousness  demand." 

No  fear  of  the  result,  when  the  presbyteries  act,  disturb.s 
us ;  but  wc  are  anxious  that  there  shall  be,  not  merely  a  good 
majority,  but  practical  unanimity  in  favor  of  union.  Other 
literature  will  follow  the  present  pamphlet,  and  as  rapidly  as 
funds  are  provided,  every  member  of  the  church  shall  be 
supplied  with  adequate  printed  matter  to  enable  him  to  reach 
an  unbiased  conclusion,  it  being  our  firm  conviction  that 
when  all  of  the  facts  arc  known,  the  plan  of  union  will  be 
gladly  approved. 


ENDORSEMENT. 

"We,  the  undersigned  ministers  and  ruling  elders,  believing  that 
when  in  possession  of  all  the  facts,  Cumberland  Presbyterians  will  agree 
that  the  proposed  union  of  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  and 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.  would  be  not  only  honoring  alike 
to  both  Churches  but  also  for  the  glory  of  God  and  the  advancement  of 
his  kingdom,  desire,  in  this  formal  way,  to  express  our  approval  of  the 
organization  for  the  promulgation  of  union  information,  of  which  organ- 
ization Dr.  S.  M.  Templeton,  of  Clarksville,  Texas,  is  Chairman. 

' '  We  further  promise  our  substantial  co-operation  with  this  committee , 
and  invite  on  that  behalf  the  aid  of  all  other  friends  of  union  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing,  not  merely  the  success  of  the  union  movement,  which 
we  regard  as  assured,  but  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  giving  correct  infor- 
mation, allaying  misunderstanding,  and  obtaining  as  nearly  as  possible 
absolute  unanimity."  * 

Ministers: 


R.  R.  Crockett,  Oklahoma,  Okla 

A.  H.  Stephens,  Chicago,  111. 

F.  R.  Earle,  Cane  Hill,  Ark. 
R.  F.  Johnston,  Walnut,  N.  C. 
R.  L.  Irving,  Punxsutawney,  Pa. 
C.  G.  Watson,  Columbus,  Ohio. 
J.  C.  Worlby,  Japan. 

W  T.  RoDGERS,  Knoxville,  Tenn. 
R.  H.  Fry,  Logansport,  Ind. 
Geo.  H.  Mack,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

B.  G.  Mitchell,  Huntsville,  Ala. 
W.  A.  Provine,  Columbia,  Tenn. 
J.  M.  Van  Horn,  Oliveburg,  Pa. 
T.  G.  Pool,  Macon,  Mo. 

W.  B.  Holmes,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
J.  W.  Jordan,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
S.  O.  Woods,  D.D.,  Crowell,  Tex. 
E.  E.  Morris,  Lebanon,  Tenn. 
W.  A.  McAnally,  Martha,  Okla. 

E.  J.  McCroskey,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
S.  G.  Frazier,  Soddy,  Tenn. 

G.  O.  Bachman,  Paducah,  Ky. 
J.  R.  McMuLLEN,  Gadsden,  Ala. 
J.  M.  Webb,  I.ewisburg,  Tenn. 
R.  A.  Cody,  Meridian,  Miss. 

H.  G.  King,  Auburn,  Ky. 

L.  D.  Ewing,  Bunceton,  Mo. 

R.  Thomsen,  Fayetteville,  Ark. 

G.  A.  Blair,  St.  Joseph,  Mo. 

J.  L.  Alexander,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

J.  O.  Davison,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

W.  C.  Logan,  Assistant  Editor  "The 

Cumberland  Presbyterian,"  Nashville. 
W.  O.  H.  Perry,  Stewartsville,  Mo. 

F.  K.  Farr,  Theol.  Sem.,  Lebanon,Tenn. 
E.  B.  Surface,  Mount  Vernon,  111. 

J.  C.  Reid,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
J.  W.  McDonald,  Decatur,  111. 
J.  M.  Johnston,  Petersburg,  111. 


J.  S.  Grider,  Smiths  Grove,  Ky. 

D.  C.  DeWitt,  Ferri.-j,  Texas. 

J.  R.  Lamb,  Walla  Walla,  Wash. 

.\.  E.  Perry,  Carthage,  Mo. 

A.  B.  Johnson,  S.  McAlester,  1.  T. 

W.  G.  Beaird,  Tipton,  Iowa. 

A.B.Johnson,  Bonner  Spgs,Kans. 

R.  J.  Shaw,  Pickens,  Miss. 

W.  B.  Farr,  Clovis,  Cal. 

W.  J.  Darby,  Evansville,  Ind. 

1r,\   Landrith,   Chicago,    111. 

J.  E.  Clarke,  Editor  "The  Cum- 
berland Presbyterian,"  Nash- 
vUle,  Tenn. 

G.  W.  Shelton,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

John  A.  McKAMY,Editor  S.  S.Lit., 
Nashville,  Tenn. 

R.  V.  Foster,  D.D.,  Theol.  Sem., 
Lebanon,  Tenn. 

J.  V.  Stephens,  Theol.  Sem., 
Lebanon,  Tenn. 

W.   C.   Denson,  Athens,   Ala. 

W.  M.  Woodfin,  Christiana,  Tenn. 

W.  O.  Harless,  Humboldt,  Tenn. 

F.  L.  Wear,  Ensley,  Ala. 

S.  P.  Pryor,  McKenzie,  Tenn. 

A.  M.  Williams,  Clarksville,  Tenn. 

E.  W.  Graves,    Irvington,    Ky. 
A.  E.  Faust,  Webb  City,  Mo. 

G.  R.  Harrison,  Editor  "Western 
Presbyter,"  Dallas,  Tex. 

J.  D.  C.  Cobb,  Jonesboro,  Ark. 
Will  L.  Dahby,  Kirksville,  Mo. 

F.  H.  Ford,  MUan,  Tenn. 

D.  T.  Waynick,  Troy,  Tenn. 
Geo.  p.  Baity,  Kansas  City,  Mo. 
T.  A.  Wigginton,  Evansville,  Ind. 
J.  A.  Francis,  Winchester,  Ky. 
W.  C.  McClelland,  Brooks,  Iowa. 


*  Only  a  few  of  the  many  times  more  names  we  could  have  secured 
are  here  given.  Others  are  coming  by  every  mail,  but  enough  appear 
above  to  show  how  general  and  strong  is  the  demand  for  union. — Committee 


K.  B.  Landis,  Mattoon,  111. 
J.  J.  Dunham,  Sarcoxie,  Mo. 
Martin  W.  Robison,  Muskogee,  I.  T. 
Wm.  S.  Smith,  Concord,  Tenn. 
G.  A.  Wilson,  Danvers,  111. 
W.  E.  Olmsted,  Stanford,  111. 
C.  P.  GooDSON,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
H.  N.  Babbee,  Covington,  Ohio. 
T.  J.  Clagett,  Marshall,  Mo. 
Monroe  Seals,  Springfield,  Tenn. 
A.  S.  M.\DDOx,  Little  Rock,  Ark. 
W.  F.  Perry,  Independence,  Mo. 
J.  J.  Dalton,  Bonham,  Tex. 
Joseph  H.  Curry,  Denton,  Tex. 
J.  C.  Smith,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

A.  G.  Bergen,  Chicago,  111. 
W.  J.  King,  Oxford,  Miss. 
Walter  E.  Spoonts,  Leroy,  111. 
J.  W.  Elder,  Petersburg,  111. 
Geo.  H.  Turner,  Petersburg,  III. 

F.  A.  Shape,  Newman,  111. 
Geo.  H.  Silvius,  Bethany,  111. 
J.  E.  Roach,  Peter.sburg,  111. 
W.  F.  Padgett,  Evansville,  Ind. 
.1.  D.  Hunter,  Franklin,  Tenn. 
D.wiD  L.  Dickey,  Olustee,  Okla. 
U.  W.  McWilliams,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Geo.  W.  Martin,  Lebanon,  Tenn. 
W.-.S.  D.A.NLEY,  D.D.,  McKeesport.  Pa. 
W.  D.  Landis,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

J.  L.  Crawford,  Galesburg,  111. 

E.  O.  Whitwell.  Willow  Springs,  Mo. 

Clay  Bobbitt,  Maxwell,  Iowa. 

H.  C.  CuLTON,  Winters,  Cal. 

L.  C.  KiRKES,  Clinton,  Mo. 

J.  H.  Kelly,  Vale,  Ark. 

.Ino.  J.  Wilson,  Fairmount,  111. 

Benjamin  Spencer,  Garland,  Tex. 

B.  A.  Hodges,  Temple,  Tex. 

W.  A.  AusBAN,  Savannah,  Tenn. 
J.  T.  Price,  Glendale,  Tenn. 
W.  B.  WiTHERSPOON,  Huntsville,  Ala. 
.1.  A.  Dop.Ris,  Oklahoma,  Okla. 

C.  R.  Zahni.ser,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

R.  W.  Binkley,  McMinnville.  Tenn. 

.1.  D.  Black,  Newman,  Cal. 

P.  A.  Price,  Grand  Junction,  Colo. 

John  Royal  Harris,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

M.  E.  Chappell,  Arlington,  Tex. 

P.  M.  Fitzgerald,  Arlington,  Tex. 

A.  G.  Bergen,  Chicago,  III. 

J.  M.  Wooten,  Gravville,  Tenn. 

R  E.  Ch.\ndler,  Ft.  Worth,  Tex. 

G.  P.  Howard,  Ada,  I.  T. 


H.   L.   Walker,  Clintoii,  Mo. 
Taylor  Bernard,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 
W.  T.  Sullivan,  Hot  Springs,  Ark. 
R.  T.  Caldwell,  Macon,  Mo. 
T.  B.  McAmis,  Lincoln,  lU. 
G.  W.  Williams,  Norris  City,  111. 
J.  W.  Mitchell,  MarshaU,  Mo. 
R.  H.  Anthony,  Cleveland,  Tenn. 
C.  P.  CooLEY,  Ridge  Farm,  III. 
H.  F.  Smith,  GaUatin,  Mo. 

E.  D.  Pearson,  Louisiana,  Mo. 
H.  F.  Bone,  Greenville,  Tex. 
W.  K.  Howe,  Aurora,  Mo. 

S.  E.  Kennon,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

J.  M.  Gaiser,  Danville,  111. 

R.  G.  Shafer,  Crossville,  111. 

W.  P.  Thurston,  Owensboro,  Ky. 

C.  E.  Hayes,  Decatur,  111. 

J.  E.  Ennis,  Catlin,  111. 

J.  F.  Rogers,  Greenview,  111. 

L.  D.  Lasswell,  Donnell.son,  111. 

Geo.  W.  Neal,  Lincoln  College, 
Lincoln,  111. 

J.  Wesley  Derr,  Lincoln,  111. 

W.M. Crawford  .Montgomery,  Ala. 

J.  K.  Howard,  Jackson,  Tenn. 

H.  C.  Bird,  Blairsville,  Pa. 

James  Hardin  Smith,  West  Nash- 
ville, Tenn. 

C.  S.  Tanner,  Downey,  Cal. 

M.  E.  Prather,  Sullivan,  Ind. 

J.  W.  Mount,  Hanford,  Cal. 

C.  M.  Latten,  McCallsburg,  Iowa. 

W.  F.  Silvius,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

B.  Wrenn  Webb,  Nevada,  Mo. 

F.  M.  Wylie,  Morrillton,  Ark. 

.1.  S.  Groves,  Honey  Grove,  Tex. 

John  A.  Ward,  Moberly,  Mo. 

M.  E.  Gab.^rd,  Santa  Fe,  Tenn. 

J.  T.  White,  Savannah,  Tenn. 

A.  W.  Denny,  Danville,  111. 

L.  D.  Beck,  Salem,  111. 

Z.  T.  Walker,  Norris  City,  111. 

James  Rayburn,  Argenl-a,  111. 

J.  W.  Mount,  Hanford,  Ca!. 

L.  N.  Montgomery,  Louisiana, Mt. 

F.  E.  Birkett,  Enfield,  111. 

H.  W.  Se.\rs,  Decatur.  111. 

J.  F.  Claycomb,  McMinnville,  Ore. 

L.  R.  Bond,  D.D.,  SodaviUe,  Ark. 

J.  B.  Wilhoite,  Lebanon,  Tenn. 

R.  A.  King.  Foss,  Okljj. 

Cha-.  Manton.  D.D  ,  Paris,  Tex, 


Ruling  Elders: 


J.  Frank  Hays,  Crowel!.  Te.x. 
J.  W.  Hays.  Crpwell,  Tex. 
M.  A.  Montgomery,  Oxford,  Miss. 
M.  F.  Smith,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
A.  R.  Taylor,  The  James  Millikin  Uni- 
versity, Decatur,  111. 
John  H.  DeWitt,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
Henry  Kauffman,  Stanford,  111. 
W.  T.  Baird,  lurksvLUe.  Mo. 
C.  W.  Turner,  Waverly,  Tenn. 
W.  H.  H.  Stephens,  Bunceton,  Mo. 


B.  F.  Allison,  Crowell,  Tex. 
T.  H.  Perrin,  Alton.  111. 
Walter  McWilliams,  Athens,  Ga 
F.  O.  Frye.  West  Nashville,  Tenn. 
John  M.  Gaut,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
J.  K.  Buchanan,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 
J.  A.  Petrie,  Greenview,  111. 
W.  J.  Grannis.  Lebanon,  Tenn. 
W.  T.  Atkinson,  Clarksville,Tenn . 
J.  T.  Rudolph,  Clarksville,  Tenn. 
W.  T.WATTS.West  Nashville, Tenn. 


J.  M.  Freeman,  Bunceton,  Mo. 

A.  H.  B0CHANAN,  Lebanon,  Tenn. 

G.  T.  Williams,  Danvers,  111. 

J.  T.  AyERs,  Danvers,  111. 

T.  B.  Underwood,  Union  City,  Tenn 

D.  C.  Caldwell,  Milan,  Tenn. 

T.  H.  Allen,  Clarksville,  Tenn. 

R.  W.  HiMES,  Covington,  Ohio. 

W.  T.  Smith.  Bonham,  Tex. 

I.  H.  Orr,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

W.  E.  RucKER,  Cleveland,  Tenn. 

Ben  Eli  Guthrie,  Macon,  Mo. 

J.  W.  Axtell,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

W.  B.  Baird,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

M.  B.  Templeton,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

J.  M.  Lancaster,  Waxahachie,  Tex. 

R.  G.  Matthews,  Macon,  Mo. 

R.  M.  J.  Sharp,  Macon,  Mo. 

Thos.  Roach,  Oklahoma,  Okla. 

Dr.  a.  C.  Scott,  Temple,  Tex. 

George  Houghton,  Temple,  Tex. 

Matt  Hamilton,  Garland,  Tex. 

Ed.  Newton,  Garland,  Tex. 

W.  F.  Porterfield,  Fairmount,  111. 

J.  T.  Alexander,  Madisonville,  Ky. 

H.  Holloman,  Madisonville,  Ky. 

W.  H.  SuLB,  Nevada,  Mo. 

Thos.  L.  Cate,  Cleveland,  Tenn. 

C.  C.  Farnsworth,  Hanford,  Cal. 

L.  P.  Padgett,  Columbia,  Tenn. 

A.  M.  Kenney,  Broadlands,  111. 

John  Gordon,  Cleveland,  Tenn. 

T.  H.  Newberry,  Soddv,  Tenn. 

W.  P.  Stark,  Louisiana,  Mo. 

J.  M.  GowDY,  Enfield,  111. 

C.  A.  Orr,  Enfield,  111. 

J.  R.  Ru.sH,  Pittsburg-,  Pa. 

S.  V.  Reeve.s,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

Geo.  K.  Smith,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

G.  F.  J.  Stephens,  Honey  Grove,  Tex. 

Frank  Campbell,  Temple,  Tex. 


T.  B.  Stephens,  Bunceton,  Mo. 
S.  O.  Smith,  Girard,  111. 
S.  A.  Deal,  Danvers,  111. 
Paul  Ingram,  Troy,  Tenn, 

F.  P.  Moore,  Obion,  Tenn. 

W.  H.  Rudolph,  Clarksville,  Tenn. 

W.  J.  Humphrey,  Greenville,  Tex. 

N.  C.  Bradford,  Bonham,  Tex. 

A.  C.  Stewart,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Jno.  T.  Huffine,  Cleveland,  Tenn. 

Dr.  G.  M.  Bozemore,  Cleveland, 
Tenn. 

W.  T.  Hardison,  Nashville, Tenn. 

William  E.WARD,Nashville,Tenn. 

T.  J.  Middleton,  Waxahachie, 
Tex. 

S.  L.  Hornbeak,  Trinity  Univer- 
sity, Waxahachie,  Tex. 

H.  S.  Parsons,  Whitewright,  Tex. 

Geo.  M.  Houser,  Macon,  Mo. 

W.  S.  Taylor,  Oklahoma,  Okla. 

J.  R.  Kennedy,  Oklahoma,  Okla. 

W.  J.  Halsell,  Garland,  Tex. 

Sam  C.  Hall,  Garland,  Tex. 

G.  H.  Robnett,  Garland,  Tex. 
Dr.  a.  J.  Lectzback,  Fairmount. 

III. 
Dick  Hodge,  Madisonville,  Ky. 
G.  G.  Ewing,  Nevada,  Mo. 
G.  E.  MosELEY,  Nevada,  Mo. 
J.  C.  Gibson,  Maxwell,  Iowa. 
M.  B.  Golden,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
W.  T.  Pankey,  DanvUle,  111. 
C.  L.  Keaton,  Dexter,  Mo. 
J.  W.  Ci.ift,  Soddy,  Tenn. 
L.  Morgan, Soddy,  Tenn. 
Taylor  Frier,  Louisiana,  Mo. 
J.  M.  Jordan,  Enfield,  111. 
Pleasant  Orr,  Enfield,  111. 
M.  L.  Zahniser,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 
Thos.  Hoskenson,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 

In  the  following  pages  are  carefully  prepared  articles  upon 
various  phases  of  the  so-called  "Union  Question."  A  full 
history  of  the  subject  appears  in  a  pamphlet  edited  by  Rev. 
James  E.  Clarke,  editor  of  "The  Cumberland  Presbyterian," 
which  pamphlet  is  entitled  "Documents  and  Reports  Relating 
to  the  Proposed  Union  Between  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
U.  S.  A.,  and  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church."  Extra 
copies  of  either  pamphlet  will  be  furnished  in  quantities  at 
two  cents  per  copy. 

Address  Jno.  M.  Gaut,  Steger  Building,  Nashville,  Tenn. 


WHAT  WE  STAND  FOR. 

For  the  Christ  of  Galilee, 

For    the    truth    which    makes    men    free. 

For  the  bond  of  unity 

Which  makes   God's  children  one. 

For  the  love  which  shines  '.n  de^ds. 
For  the  life  which  this  world  needs. 
For  the  church  whose  triumph   speeds 
The  prayer :    "Thy  will  be  done." 

For  the  right  against  the  wrong. 
For  the  weak  against  the  strong, 
For  the  poor  who've  waited  long 
For  the  brighter  age  to  be. 

For  the  faith  against  tradition, 
For  the  truth  'gainst  superstition, 
For  the  hope  whose  glad  fruition 
Our  waiting  eyes  shall  see. 

For  the  city  God  is  rearing. 
For  the  New  Earth  now  appearing, 
For  the  heaven  above  us  clearing, 
And  the  song  of  victory. 


— Anon. 


PREFACE. 

For  the  matter  which  fills  the  pages  of  this  pamphlet  the 
committee  are  indebted  to  several  authors.  The  chapters 
entitled,  "Explanatory,"  "Why  Union?"  and  "Conclu- 
sion," were  written  by  Rev.  Ira  Landrith,  LL.D. ; 
and  that  entitled  "Agreement  of  Creeds"  by  Rev.  B. 
G.  Mitchell,  D.D.  While  the  chapter  entitled  "Predicted  Liti- 
gation" was  written  by  John  M.  Gaut,  it  at  the  same  time 
embodies  the  results  of  extended  and  thoughtful  investigation 
on  the  part  of  Hon.  M.  A.  Montgomery,  of  Oxford,  Miss., 
and  John  H.  DeWitt,  Esq.,  of  Nashville,  Tenn.  Some  weeks 
since  Hon.  Alex  P.  Humphrey,  of  Louisville,  at  the  request 
of  Judge  Settle,  gave  in  a  letter  to  the  latter  an  opinion  upon 
the  legal  construction  of  the  provision  made  in  the  Basis  of 
Union  for  the  separation  of  the  races.  This  opinion  Judge 
Humphrey  has  kindly  permitted  us  to  embody  in  the  chapter 
on  that  subject.  This  opinion  is  supplemented  by  matter,  re- 
lating to  somewhat  different  phases  of  the  subject,  prepared 
by  Judge  Settle  himself.  Judge  Humphrey  is  a  son  of  an 
eminent  Presbyterian  minister,  is  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  easily 
stands  in  the  front  rank,  if  not  at  the  head,  of  the  Kentucky 
bar.  Judge  Settle,  the  Hon.  W.  E.  Settle,  is  one  of  the  judges 
of  the  Kentucky  Court  of  Appeals  and  was  Moderator  of  our 
last  General  Assembly.  The  chapter,  therefore,  presents  the 
concurrent  opinion  of  two  eminent  lawyers,  one  viewing  the 
questions  from  a  Presbyterian,  the  other  from  a  Cumberland 
Presbyterian,  standpoint. 

The  committee  send  forth  the  pamphlet  trusting  that  the 
facts  which  it  sets  forth  and  the  arguments  which  it  contains 
may  lead  many  to  a  better  understanding  of  the  important 
question  pending  before  the  church.  They  humbly  pray  that 
an  overruling  Providence  may  use  it  for  the  accomplishment 
of  his  purposes. 

S.  M.  Templeton, 
John  M.  Gaut, 
John  H.  DeWitt, 
Ira  Landrith, 
I.  D.  Steele, 
C.  E.  Hayes. 
7 


WHY  UNION?     IN  BRIEF. 


Because,  whether  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  radically 
revised  its  creed,  as  many  of  them  admit,  or  has  only  ex- 
plained it,  as  some  of  them  claim,  that  creed  now  contains 
practically  everything  for  which  Cumberland  Presbyterians 
have  contended,  hence  there  remains  no  sufficient  reason  for 
continued  separation. 

Because  the  union  of  churches  which  are  practically  agreed 
in  doctrine  and  polity  is  in  harmony  with  the  fraternal  spirit 
of  the  age,  and,  above  all,  would,  we  think,  please  him  who 
prayed  for  the  co-operative  oneness  of  Christianity. 

Because  it  would  greatly  reduce  the  cost  of  general  ad- 
ministration by  lessening  the  number  of  boards  and  Assembly 
committees. 

Because  it  would  enable  weak  churches  in  the  same  town 
to  combine  and  thus  save  for  better  uses  the  energy  and 
money  sometimes  wasted  in  competition.  In  this  way,  in 
many  instances,  one  good  church  would  be  organized  and 
more  effective  work  accomplished  than  is  now  done  by  two 
or  more  churches. 

Because  in  both  home  and  foreign  missionary  territory  one 
church  with  the  combined  strength  of  two  can  do  more  good 
at  less  cost  than  two  separate  churches  of  the  same  faith 
and  practice  are  able  to  do. 

Because  the  time  has  come  when  every  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian on  earth,  without  apology  for  or  change  of  his  con- 
victions of  Biblical  truth,  and  without  the  slightest  humilia- 
tion, can  consistently  surrender  his  denominational  name  for 
the  great  gain,  not  of  pride  in  a  church  with  large  numbers, 
but  the  vast  advantage  of  the  increased  usefulness  that  comes 
to  the  individual  worker  when  the  whole  body  is  made  more 
efficient.  As  the  Herald  and  Presbyter,  a  Presbyterian  journal, 
has  lately  said :  "The  union  of  our  great  denominations,  if  it 
can  be  accomplished  in  accordance  with  the  will   of  Christ, 


is  to  be  sought  for  not,  as  some  seem  to  think,  to  gratify  an 
ambition  for  great  things,  but  in  order  to  more  efficiency  in 
God's  service.  Some  who  decry  such  union  think  that  its 
promoters  are  animated  only  by  a  spectacular  desire  or  am- 
bition for  what  is  big.  This  cannot  be,  or  must  not  be,  the 
motive.  But  if  energy,  money,  machinery  and  men  may  be 
made  to  do  more  for  the  promotion  of  God's  kingdom,  when 
working  through  one  influential  and  economical  organization 
than  through  a  dozen,  then  we  should  be  in  favor  of  the  one 
rather  than  the  dozen.  Because  we  all  love  Christ,  and  should 
be  working  with  the  utmost  efficiency  to  do  his  work  in  saving 
men,  all  the  Presbyterian  churches  of  this  country  should  be 
one  body.     Some  day  they  will  be." 

Because,  if  this  union  succeeds,  other  denominational  unions 
under  consideration  can  be  consummated,  and  the  too  scattered 
forces  of  our  Lord's  army  concentrated  for  further  action. 
The  failure  of  this  union,  mutually  so  honorable,  and  so 
auspiciously  inaugurated,  would  be  a  great  discouragement, 
not  only  to  those  who  hope  for  the  ultimate  unity  of  Presby- 
terianism,  but  to  all  who  believe  that  the  several  ecclesiastical 
families  should  seek  a  closer  alliance.  If  this  union  is  im- 
possible no  other  union  however  desirable  is  an  early  proba- 
bility. 

Because  the  recent  additions  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Faith  are  all  in  such  harmony  with  Cumberland  Presby- 
terianism's  position  that,  whatever  may  have  been  left  in  the 
creed  that  is  not  in  accord  with  our  position,  has  either  been 
contradicted  and  thereby  revised,  or  explained  away,  and 
thereby,  so  far  as  it  is  objectionable  to  us,  annulled;  hence, 
why  should  we  halt  on  doctrinal  grounds? 

Because,  whatever  differences  may  have  existed  among  us 
as  to  the  timeliness  of  this  union  movement,  we  are  now  con- 
fronted by  a  condition,  not  a  theory.  The  movement  has 
advanced  so  far  that  we  have  admitted  the  truth,  first  by  the 
unanimous  vote  of  our  Committee  on  Fraternity  and  Union 
and  later  by  the  voice  of  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  the  Presbyterians  have  agreed  with  us,  that 
there  is  no  longer  enough  doctrinal  difference  between  the 
two  churches  to  warrant  continued  separation ;  which  means 
that,  if  union  should  fail,  the  future  Cumberland  Presbyterian 

9 


Church  would  be  a  denomination  without  a  distinctive  doc- 
trinal contention,  and  hence  without  a  reason  for  existence 
which  would  be  acceptable  to  thoughtful  people  seeking  a 
church  home.  Plainly  putting  it,  under  the  circumstances 
union  has  now  become  all  but  a  Cumberland  Presbyterian 
necessity,  so  close  of  kin  is  it  to  self-preservation ;  and  this, 
too,  in  addition  to  the  fact  that,  assuming  that  both  the  Com- 
mittee on  Fraternity  and  Union  and  the  General  Assembly 
were  sincere  and  capable  of  forming  a  correct  opinion,  the 
proposed  union  would  be  in  accord  with  the  divine  will  and 
promotive  of  the  growth  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

Because  the  union  of  a  church  so  largely  Southern  as  is 
our  own  with  a  denomination  whose  membership  is  chiefly 
Northern,  would  be  a  national  blessing,  tending  to  prove  that, 
though  too  tardy,  the  churches  are  at  last  willing  to  make  a 
large  contribution  to  that  Christlike  patriotism  which  refuses 
to  keep  alive  the  bitterness  of  sectional  hatred.  If  this  union 
can  be  consummated,  we  believe  that  the  divisions  of  other 
denominations  into  Northern  and  Southern  churches  will  soon 
be  healed ;  and  surely  this  is  a  consummation  devoutly  to  be 
wished. 

Because  the  united  church  would  be  characteristically  and 
completely  the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  strong  and 
prepared  to  grow  stronger  in  every  state  and  territory  in  the 
American  union.  Such  a  body,  evangelistic  in  spirit  and  in 
all  respects  well  equipped  for  service,  would  be  the  most 
powerful  agency  in  the  world  for  obeying  our  Lord's  last  com- 
mand. Such  a  body,  too,  would  soon  draw  unto  itself  the 
other  branches  of  Presbyterianism,  making  a  single  church 
so  vast  and  valuable,  so  influential  and  so  powerful,  that  if  it 
remained  humble  and  prayerful,  and  we  believe  it  will — sin  in 
high  and  low  places  could  be  triumphantly  attacked  and  sin- 
ners in  unprecedented  multitudes  led  to  the  Savior. 

Because,  if  a  majority  of  the  presbvteries  so  elect,  there 
are  no  legal  barriers  to  complete  union,  including  the  transfer 
of  all  church  property  to  the  united  church.  This  is  made 
plain  by  legal  opinions  and  decisions  printed  further  on  in 
this  brochure.  Recent  English  decisions  do  not  discourage 
this  confidence,  for  as  the  Westminster,  a  Philadelphia  Pres- 
byterian journal,  remarks:     "British  law,  whatever  it  may  be, 

10 


was  repealed  in  this  country  something  over  a  century  ago. 
Here  a  church  has  the  right  to  interpret  its  own  creed,  and 
so  will  Scotland  before  the  case  is  over."  Union  will  be  in 
effect  on  the  part  of  Cumberland  Presbyterians  the  mere  ex- 
ercise of  the  constitutional  right  to  interpret  or  revise  the 
creed,  by  the  adoption  of  the  revised  Westminster  Confession 
instead  of  our  own  creedal  statement  of  the  same  doctrine. 
No  fear  need  be  entertained  but  that  the  church's  property 
will  follow  the  church  into  the  union. 

Because  every  step  taken  by  both  denominations  has  been 
preceded  by  the  most  earnest  prayer  for  divine  guidance,  and 
by  the  most  exhaustive  discussion  of  every  present  and  pos- 
sible difficulty  or  obstacle,  the  overwhelming  consensus  of 
opinion  being  that  it  is  the  Lord  who  is  leading  us  into  this 
union. 

Because,  by  the  terms  agreed  upon,  the  race  question  has 
been  removed  from  the  pathway  of  Presbyterian  progress  in 
the  South ;  and  that  whole  marvelously  developing  section 
will  henceforth  be  wide  open  to  Presbyterian  Church  exten- 
sion. The  home  missionary  funds  of  both  churches,  wisely 
expended  according  to  the  counsel  of  the  great  number  of 
informed  Cumberland  Presbyterians  and  the  advice  of  their 
Presbyterian  neighbors,  should  render  easy  the  planting  of 
the  new  church  in  every  city,  town,  village  and  rural  com- 
munity South  of  the  Ohio  river  where  adequate  church  work 
is  not  now  being  done.  With  a  better  mutual  understanding, 
too,  and  with  the  friction  of  compulsory  presbyterial  and 
synodical  contact  forever  removed,  our  own  people  should 
gladly  co-operate  in  the  evangelization  ?nd  religious  education 
of  the  negroes  in  the  South,  thus  ensuring  better  results 
than  have  ever  been  possible.  Missionary  agencies  will  no 
longer  be  far  removed  from  them,  but  such  efforts  will  be 
made  through  those  who  know  them  best  and  are  concerned 
for  them  most — the  white  people  of  the  South. 

Because  the  Presbyterian  Committee  on  Co-operation  and 
Union  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  have  manifested  the  most 
generous  possible  spirit  in  all  of  these  negotiations,  en- 
deavoring at  no  time  to  secure  any  of  the  advantages  which 
superior    numbers    might   have   won,    but   plainly,    even    coh- 

11 


fessedly,  anxious  to  make  every  consistent  concession  to  in- 
sure a  union  at  once  creditable  and  satisfactory  to  the  most 
devoted  lover  of  the  Cumberland  Presoyterian  Church.  The 
result  is  a  plan  whereby  may  be  effected  "a  union  alike  honor- 
able to  both  churches." 

Because  this  union  is  earnestly  desired  by  practically  every 
Presbyterian  who  favored  the  revision  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith,  whereas  the  very  few  Presbyterians  op- 
posed to  union  on  doctrinal  grounds  belonged,  without  a 
single  known  exception,  to  the  small  minority  who  antagon- 
ized the  recent  revision.  Any  hint  that  "Cumberland  Presby- 
terians are  not  wanted  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  and  any 
appeal  to  our  people  against  "going  where  they  are  not 
wanted,"  should  be  disregarded,  since  the  almost  unanimous 
majority  for  union  in  the  Presbyterian  Assembly,  the  un- 
controllable joy  of  the  commissioners  that  followed  the  vote, 
the  cordial  expressions  of  eagerness  for  the  union  heard  on 
every  hand  by  those  of  us  who  have  lived  among  the  Pres- 
byterians and  talked  much  with  them  from  one  end  of  the 
continent  to  the  other,  and  the  assurance  we  have  that  more 
than  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyterian  presbyteries  will  certainly 
endorse  the  union  agreement — all  these  things  should  make 
it  plain  that  this  union  is  not  unwelcome  to  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  effort  of  Dr.  Warfield  and  a  few  others  to 
make  Cumberland  Presbyterians  afraid  that  they  would  not 
find  the  atmosphere  of  the  united  church  congenial,  has  been 
repudiated  by  the  strongest  Presbyterian  newspapers  and 
ministers. 

Because,  though  some  things  in  the  creed,  left  after  re- 
vision, and  taken  apart  from  the  revision  itself,  which  is  the 
church's  last,  and,  therefore,  most  binding  utterance,  may  be 
out  of  harmony  with  Cumberland  Presbyterian  belief,  the 
terms  of  union  specifically  allow  liberty  of  belief,  as  also 
does  the  Declaratory  Statement ;  and  no  Cumberland  Pres- 
byterian will  be  required  to  do  more  than  accept  the  revised 
Confession  "as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures."  Since  the  revised  Confession,  what- 
ever else  it  holds,  contains  literally  everj'thing  Cumberland 
Presbyterians  have  stood  for,  surely  there  will  be  no  viola- 
tion of  conscience  in  adopting  the  plan  of  union. 

12 


AGREEMENT  OF  CREEDS. 


Is  there  now  such  aoctrinal  agreement  between  our  church 
and  the  mother  church  as  to  warrant  organic  union?  It  is 
a  fact  undisputed  that  the  doctrinal  and  evangelical  utterances 
of  the  pulpits  of  the  two  churches  have  been  a  lonig  time 
in  agreement.  It  now  remains  to  show  that  the  doctrinal 
and  evangelical  agreement  has  taken  such  creedal  and  con- 
fessional form  as  to  justify  the  union  of  the  two  churches 
without  doing  violence  to  the  present  faith  of  either.  It 
was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  joint  committees  on  union 
that  there  is  now  substantial  creedal  agreement,  and  that 
opinion  was  adopted  overwhelmingly  by  the  two  recent  Gen- 
eral Assemblies,  thus  making  it  the  officially  expressed  opinion 
of  the  two  churches.  The  correctness  of  this  judgment  will 
appear  from  a  brief  consideration  of  the  character  and  man- 
ner of  creedal  revision  in  both  churches. 

And  first  in  our  church  :  For  the  first  four  years  of  our 
denominational  life  the  Westminster  Confession  (excepting 
the  idea  of  fatality  believed  by  many  to  be  logically  taught 
in  the  third  and  tenth  chapters)  was  our  creed.  In  1814  that 
Confession  was  revised  with  special  reference  to  four  points 
on  which  our  founders  differed  or  dissented  from  the  West- 
minster Confession  as  then  interpreted.  The  points,  in  their 
own  language,  are  four,  and  have  become  historic:  "i.  There 
are  no  eternal  reprobates.  2.  Christ  died  not  for  a  part  only, 
but  for  all  mankind.  3.  That  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are 
saved  through  Christ  and  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit.  4. 
That  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  all  the  world,  or  as  co- 
extensively  as  Christ  has  made  atonement,  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  leave  all  men  inexcusable."  Let  anyone  take  the  revi- 
sion of  1814,  which  remained  our  Confession  till  1883,  go 
through  it  carefully,  and  he  will  find  that  it  was  mainly 
on   the   above    mentioned    four    points    that    the    Westminster 

13 


was  revised.  Our  revision  of  1883  did  not  change  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  retained  in  the  revision  of  1814;  it  put  them  in 
briefer  form  and  more  logical  arrangement.  The  above  four 
points  constituted  the  substance  of  the  so-called  "Brief  State- 
ment" formulated  and  sent  out  by  our  first  synod.  They 
have  ever  constituted  the  basis  of  our  historic  protest  against 
so-called  "extreme  Westminsterism."  Our  method  of  re- 
vision was  to  take  up  the  Confession,  chapter  by  chapter, 
and  the  Catechism  based  on  the  Confession,  and  to  change  or 
modify  those  sections  that  seemed  to  teach  limited  atonement, 
unconditional  reprobation,  damnation  of  some  infants,  limited 
operation  of  the  Spirit  and  irresistible  grace.  Our  present 
Confession  is  the  Westminster  Confession  as  revised  in 
1814  and  1883,  and  as  revised  in  the  above  four  particulars. 

And  now  as  to  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
by  the  mother  church.  Have  they  revised?  Certainly  not 
in  the  way  in  which  we  revised.  They  pursued  a  different 
method.  Instead  of  rewriting  the  famous  third  and  tenth 
chapters,  and  those  portions  of  the  Catechism  corresponding 
to,  and  based  upon  those  chapters,  they  revised  them  by  an 
explanatory  creedal  amendment,  called  a  "Declaratory  State- 
ment." This  statement  is  made  a  part  of  the  creed.  It  is 
far-reaching  in  its  eiTect.  It  declares  particularly  and  spe- 
cifically the  construction  that  must  be  put  upon  those  chap- 
ters, and  by  implication  upon  the  corresponding  portions 
of  the  Catechism,  in  their  teachings  concerning  God's  decree, 
his  love,  the  atonement  in  Christ,  man's  ability  to  accept  or 
reject  salvation,  and  the  salvation  of  infants.  Now  keep  well 
in  mind  that  these  are  the  very  points  in  the  old  Confession 
where  our  founders  found  trouble,  and  from  which  they 
could  get  no  relief.  The  same  has  been  true  with  thousands 
of  others  in  the  old  church.  But  relief  has  come  at  last. 
Here  is  the  explanatory  creedal  amendment  touching  chapters 
3  and  10  of  the  Confession  of  Faith :  "That  concerning 
those  who  are  saved  in  Christ,  the  doctrine  of  God's  eternal 
decree  is  held  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  of  his  love  for 
all  mankind,  his  gift  of  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world,  and  his  readiness  to  bestow  his  sav- 
ing grace   on   all    who   seek   it.     That   concerning   those   who 

14 


perish,  the  doctrine  of  God's  eternal  decree  is  held  in  harmony 
with  the  doctrine  that  God  desires  not  the  death  of  any 
sinner,  but  has  provided  in  Christ  a  salvation  sufficient  for 
all,  adapted  to  all,  and  freely  offered  in  the  gospel  to  all ;  that 
men  are  fully  responsible  for  their  treatment  of  God's  gra- 
cious offer ;  that  his  decree  hinders  no  man  from  accepting 
that  offer ;  and  that  no  man  is  condemned  except  on  the 
ground  of  this  sin  ... ;  that  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
teaching  that  any  who  die  in  infancy  are  lost.  We  believe 
that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  included  in  the  election  of  grace, 
and  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit, 
who  works  when  and  where  and  how  he  pleases." 

Had  this  explanatory  creedal  amendment  been  a  part  of 
the  Confession  in  the  days  of  our  founders,  who  can  im- 
agine for  a  moment  that  the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  church 
would  have  ever  been  organized?  This  is  the  very  relief  and 
privilege  for  which  'hey  contended,  the  thing  they  prayed  for, 
the  thing  they  longed  for,  and  the  thing  for  which  they 
waited  through  long  and  anxious  years  before  lauiicning  an 
independent  Presbyterian  church.  But  this  is  not  all  that  we 
have.  Two  new  chapters  have  been  added  to  their  creed,  thus 
revising  by  addition  the  Confession  as  a  whole;  for  the  ex- 
pressed purpose  of  these  two  chapters,  as  set  forth  in  the 
revisional  and  adopting  act,  is  "to  express  more  fully  the  doc- 
trine of  the  church  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit,  missions,  and 
the  love  of  God  to  all  men."  But  why  "express  more  fully" 
the  present  doctrine  or  teaching  of  the  church  on  these 
points?  Because  the  teaching  of  the  old  Confession  (unre- 
vised)  on  these  points  v/as  obscure,  partial,  somewhat  in 
dispute,  and  did  not  represent  fully  and  clearly,  beyond  all 
question,  the  present  faith  of  the  church.  I  give  a  few 
quotations  from  these  new  revisional  chapters.  Space  will 
not  permit  giving  them  entire :  "God,  in  infinite  and  perfect 
love,  having  provided  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  through  the 
mediation  aud  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  Tesus  Christ,  a  way  of 
life  and  salvation,  sufficient  for  and  adapted  to  the  whole 
lost  race  of  man,  doth  freely  offer  this  salvation  to  all  men  in 
the  gospel.  In  the  gospel  God  declares  his  love  for  the  world 
and   his   desire  that  all   men   should   be   saved,   reveals   fully 

IS 


and  clearly  the  only  way  of  salvation;  promises  eternal  life 
to  all  who  truly  repent  and  believe  in  Christ ;  invites  and 
commands  all  to  embrace  the  offered  mercy,  and  by  his 
Spirit  accompanying  the  word  pleads  with  men  to  accept  his 
gracious  invitation.  It  is  the  duty  and  privilege  of  every  one 
who  hears  the  gospel  immediately  to  accept  its  merciful  pro- 
visions ;  and  they  who  continue  in  impenitence  and  unbelief 
incur  aggravated  guilt  and  perish  by  their  own  fault.  .  .  .  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life  everywhere  present 
in  nature,  and  is  the  source  of  all  good  thoughts,  pure  de- 
sires and  holy  counsels  in  men.  .  .  .  The  dispensation  of  the 
gospel  is  especially  committed  to  him.  He  prepares  the  way 
'  for  it,  accompanies  it  with  his  persuasive  power,  and  urges 
its  message  upon  the  reason  and  conscience  of  man,  so  that 
they  who  reject  its  merciful  offer  are  not  only  without  ex- 
cuse but-  are  also  guilty  of  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  .  He 
convicts  men  of  sin,  moves  them  to  repentance,  regenerates 
them  by  his  grace,  and  persuades  and  enables  them  to  em- 
brace Jesus   Christ  by  faith,"   etc. 

Do  not  these  quotations  from  their  revision  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  (1903)  show  that  that  revision  affected 
the  identical  points  emphasized  in  our  revision  of  the  same 
Confession  (1814),  and  in  the  same  direction?  Do  not  these 
revisional  and  amendment  portions  of  the  Confession  teach 
clearly  and  emphatically  the  love  of  God  for  all  men,  atone- 
ment in  Christ  for  all  men.  the  ability  of  every  man,  under 
the  enabling  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  repent  and  believe, 
the  salvation  of  all  infants  dying  in  infancy,  and  the  just  con- 
demnation of  the  man  who  is  "guilty  of  resisting  the  Holy 
Ghost?"  Is  it  not  set  forth  beyond  all  dispute  that  regener- 
ation and  justification  (salvation)  are  conditioned  upon  re- 
pentance and  faith,  and  that  no  man  is  condemned  by  the 
eternal  decree  of  God,  but  solely  "on  the  ground  of  his  sin?" 

But  objection  is  made:  "These  explanatory  revisional  and 
amendment  utterances  are  clear,  true,  and  beyond  all  ques- 
tion the  very  heart  of  the  gospel  as  understood  and  taught 
by  Cumberland  Prestyterians,  but  they  contradict  the  old 
Confession  and  cannot  be  made  to  harmonize  with  it."  Grant 
that  we,  from  our  traditional  point  of  interpretation,  cannot 

16 


harmonize  the  new  with  the  old,  shall  we  throw  away  the 
new  and  the  clear,  and  hold  to  the  old  and  obscure?  When 
a  great  and  intelligent  church  construes  its  Confession,  and 
puts  that  construction  into  its  creed,  there  is  nothing  left  for 
us  to  do  but  to  accept  it  as  made  in  all  sincerity.  Certainly  a 
church  has  the  right  to  explain  its  own  creed.  We  need  to 
remember  that  all  additions  to  a  code  or  to  a  Confession  by 
way  of  explanatory  and  revisional  amendments  and  additions 
do  not  have  to  be  harmonized  with  all  that  has  been  previ- 
ously decreed. 

The  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  at  Buffalo  adopted  a 
resolution  which  has  been  misunderstood  to  mean  that  the 
revision  of  their  Confession  of  Faith  made  no  doctrinal 
change.  This  resolution  was  to  the  effect  that  the  revision 
had  not  "impaired  the  integrity  of  the  system  of  doctrine" 
contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  The  "system  of 
doctrine"  referred  to  is  what  is  generally  known  as  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system  as  distinguished  from  the  Arminian  system. 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  do  not  claim  that  the  "system"  has 
been  impaired ;  in  fact,  from  the  times  of  the  fathers  to  the 
present  day,  Cumberland  Presbyterians  have  never  de- 
manded that  it  should  be.  They  have  asked  only  that  certain 
statements  of  doctrine  should  be  so  changed  that  they  could 
not  be  understood  to  mean  that  God  arbitrarily  chose  some 
men  to  eternal  life,  without  reference  to  the  faith  of  such 
men,  and  that  he  arbitrarily  consigned  others  to  eternal  death, 
without  reference  to  their  sins.  That  language  of  the  West- 
minster Confession  has  been  so  changed  that  it  cannot  now 
be  fairly  interpreted  as  teaching  "fatalism."  Our  fathers 
rever  demanded  a  change  of  the  "system  of  doctrine."  They 
counted  themselves  as  Calvinists,  not  Armmians.  All  they 
asked  was  that  the  statements  which  they  understood  to  teach 
"fatalism"  should  be  either  removed  or  explained.  Our 
system  of  civil  government  is  republican.  We  have  repeatedly 
made  material  changes  in  our  Federal  Constitution,  yet  no 
one  will  contend  that  the  integrity  of  our  system  was  thereby 
impaired.     It  is  still  the  republican  system. 

Opponents  of  the  Union  proposition  make  much  of  the 
fact  that  the  Revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession  was 
made    by    adding    a    Declaratory    Statement    and    some    new 

17 


chapters,  rather  than  by  actually  changing  the  language  of 
the  Third  Chapter  and  others  of  similar  bearing.  A  recent 
writer  says,  "Whenever  the  Presbyterian  Chur-^h  takes  the 
Third  Chapter  and  others  like  it  out  of  its  Confession  and  al- 
lows the  Declaratory  Statement  to  stand  in  their  stead, 
then  and  not  until  then,  can  it  be  claimed  that  there  is  'sub- 
stantial agreement'  between  the  two  Confessions." 

Article  4,  Section  2,  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  as  follows :  "No  person  held  to  service  or  to  labor 
in  one  state,  und^r  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another, 
shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  dis- 
charged from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered 
up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may 
be  due."  Section  i  of  the  13th  Amendment,  following 
several,  pages  after  the  foregoing,  is  as  follows:  "Neither 
slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for 
crime,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted  shall 
exist  within  the  United  States,  or  any  place  subject  to  their 
jurisdiction."  This  latter  is  the  "Declaratory  Statement"  of 
our  Constitution  which  makes  slavery  and  fugitive  slave  laws 
forever  impossible.  And  yet  Article  4,  Section  2,  stands  in- 
tact, without  a  word  changed  and  is  printed  in  every  copy 
of  the  Constitution  that  is  issued,  anywhere  in  our  land. 
Not  only  is  this  true,  but  there  is  not  even  an  asterisk  and 
footnote  referring  to  the  13th  Amendment,  as  is  the  case 
between  the  3rd  Chapter  and  the  Declaratory  Statement. 
Nobody  ever  heard  of  even  the  rankest  abolitionist  proposing 
to  renounce  his  allegiance  to  the  Constitution  of  our  Nation 
because  this  Article  upholding  slavery  remains  in  it  un- 
changed. 

Again,  Section  8  of  our  Church  Constitution  declares  that 
"the  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers  of  the  Church  are  .  .  . 
ruling  elders,"  etc.  By  Section  47  it  is  again  declared  that 
"The  offices  of  ruling  elder  and  deacon  are  perpetual."  The 
amendment  of  1901,  without  striking  out  or  changing  a  single 
word  in  these  two  sections,  and  without  professing  to  amend 
Section  8,  provides  for  the  election  of  ruling  elders  "for  a 
limited  time."  Both  sections,  and  the  amendment  to  Section 
47,  are  part  of  our  Constitution  and  are,  by  order  of  the 
Assembly,  printed  as  such.     Shall  we  amend  by  addition  and 

18 


not  allow  the  same  privilege  to  our  Presbyterian  brethren? 
Has  any  one  ever  complained  that  there  were  "contradictory 
statements"  in  our  Constitution  or  doubted  that  the  new 
prevails  over  the  old? 

And  now  what  is  the  conclusion  to  which  we  are  forced? 
It  is  that  our  own  church  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  U.  S.  A.,  the  mother  church,  are  now  in  agreement  in  the 
matters  of  creed,  polity  and  spirit,  and  that  the  two  may  and 
should  become  one.  And  now  one  practical  argument  in  con- 
clusion. Up  to  1903  we  were  able  to  justify  our  separate 
denominational  existence  on  the  ground  that  the  mother 
church  differed  with  us  on  vital  doctrinal  points.  As  we 
have  seen  these  points  were  four,  and  have  constituted  the 
basis  of  our  historic  protest  against  the  creed  of  that  church 
as  understood  and  interpreted  by  us.  But  since  their  recent 
revision  those  points  of  dissent  no  longer  exist.  There  is 
positive  creedal  evidence  now  that  the  grounds  of  our  historic 
protest  are  gone.  This  was  not  of  our  doing.  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent now,  when  we  come  in  competition  in  our  denominational 
work  with  the  mother  church,  that  we  are  helpless  when  it 
comes  to  giving,  as  we  have  ever  been  able  to  do  heretofore, 
a  reason  to  wide-awake  business  men  of  the  farm,  the  office, 
the  store,  and  the  shop  for  our  denominational  exisence,  and 
why  they  should  join  us?  Can  we  any  longer  justify  our- 
selves before  the  religious  world?  Can  we  any  longer  justify 
ourselves  before  the  earnest  thinking  men  and  women  of  our 
own  church,  especially  those  on  our  borders  and  in  our  mission 
fields?  In  all  seriousness  I  ask,  Can  we  justify  ourselves 
before  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  who  prayed  "that  they 
all  may  be  one?"  Separations,  schisms,  and  splits  have  long 
been  a  reproach  to  our  Presbyterian  churches,  and  cannot 
be  too  soon  taken  away.  Unjustifiable  division  of  the  Church 
the  body  of  Christ,  is  sin.  May  the  Spirit  of  him  who  is 
Head  and  Lord  guide  us  in  his  way. 


19 


PREDICTED  LITIGATION. 


Some  opponents  of  the  union  are  filling  the  air  with  predic- 
tions of  schism,  and  litigation  over  church  property.  Such 
prophecies  throw  no  light  on  the  question  whether  the  union 
is  right  or  wrong.  But  as  they  may  deter  some  member  of 
presbytery  from  voting  his  honest  convictions  it  is  proper  to 
consider  the  foundations  on  which  they  rest.  It  is  not  pre- 
sumable that  Cumberland  Presbyterians  will  disturb  the  peace 
of  the  church  of  Christ  with  hopeless  litigation. 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Tennessee  is  quoted  as  declaring 
that  the  civil  courts  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  to  enforce  the 
personal  and  property  rights  of  churches.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  ecclesiastical  courts  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  all 
ecclesiastical  questions.  Both  of  these  statements  are  frag- 
mentary. Their  relation  to  each  other  is  shown  by  a  more 
complete  statement  of  the  law  made  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  Indiana  as  follows :  "The  rule  in  this  country  has  become 
elementary  that  when  a  civil  right  depends  upon  some  matter 
pertaining  to  ecclesiastical  affairs,  the  civil  tribunal  tries  the 
civil  right  and  nothing  more,  taking  the  ecclesiastical  decisions 
out  of  which  the  civil  right  has  arisen,  as  it  finds  them  and 
accepts  such  decisions  as  matters  adjudicated  by  another 
legally  constituted  jurisdiction."  Lamb  vs.  Cain,  14  L.  R.  A. 
527.  In  support  of  this  the  learned  judge  cites  cases  in 
Indiana,  Ohio,  New  York  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  To  these  may  be  added  the  Supreme  Courts 
of  Tennessee,  Texas,  Illinois,  and  other  states. 

When  the  attempt  is  made  in  a  civil  court  to  show  that 
the  General  Assembly  and  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries  of 
the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  are  schismatics  or 
"revolutionists"  something  more  will  be  necessary  than  to 
make  the  sweeping  statement  that  they  have  "abandoned  the 
church  and  joined   the   Presbyterians."     The  court  will  want 

20 


to  know  what  particular  acts  have  been  done,  who  did  them 
and  what  were  the  constitutional  powers  of  those  who  did 
them.  When  it  comes  to  the  bill  of  particulars  we  assume 
that  the  first  complaint  will  be  that  they  have  surrendered 
the  name  of  the  church.  To  this  the  most  obvious  reply  is 
that  no  one  doubts  their  power  to  change  its  name.  More- 
over, the  name  of  a  church  is  a  thing  of  minor  importance. 
In  a  case  growing  out  of  the  union  of  the  Associate  Church 
and  the  Associate  Reformed  Church  the  same  complaint  was 
made.  .  The  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  said  that  a 
change  in  name  was  "a  natural  incident  of  the  union  and 
must  go  with  its  principal."  In  words  almost  prophetically 
applicable  to  our  situation  it  further  said:  "Moreover,  that 
is  not  the  name  they  adopted — it  was  imposed  upon  them  by 
the  public.  It  is  surely  to  be  regretted  that  the  acts  of  the 
church  should  be  ofifensive  to  its  members;  but  it  is  much 
more  to  be  regretted  that  any  members  should  be  so  wedded 
to  a  name  or  other  form  as  to  be  offended  at  what  the  church 
regards  as  a  progress  that  increases  the  organic  force  of  its 
principles.  The  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  lost 
none  of  its  rights  at  our  Revolution  by  giving  up  its  old 
name,  the  Church  of  England  in  America ;  and  all  of  its 
churches,  including  Trinity,  New  York,  retained  their  property 
under  the  new  organization  and  new  name  though  the  old 
was  very  dear  to  them."    Watson  vs.  McGinnis,  41  Penn.  9. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  consummation  of  the  union  in- 
volves the  substitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith 
for  our  own,  the  reply  is  threefold. 

1.  Our  General  Assembly  "is  the  highest  court  of  the 
church,  and  represents  in  one  body  all  the  particular  churches 
thereof."  Con.,  Sec.  40.  It  has  the  power  "to  decide  in  all 
controversies  respecting  doctrine."  Con.,  Sec.  43.  It  has  de- 
cided, by  adopting  the  Joint  Report  on  Union,  that  "such 
agreement  now  exists  between  the  systems  of  doctrine  con- 
tained in  the  Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  two  churches  as  to 
warrant  this  union."  This  decision  of  our  highest  ecclesiasti- 
cal court  is,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  conclusive  on  the 
civil  courts. 

2.  If  this  question  of  fact  were  an  open  one  before  the  civil 
court,  that  court  v/ould  be  bound  to  find,  on  the  testimony 

21 


that  there  was  agreement  between  the  two  creeds.  It  is  a 
mere  begging  of  the  question  to  say  that  we  are  surrendering 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  taking  that  of  the  Presbyterians. 
If  the  two  creeds  are  in  substance  the  same,  we  are  neither 
surrendering  ours  nor  taking  theirs.  We  are  simply  adhering 
to  our  own  which  is  at  the  same  time  their  own. 

3.  Were  the  difference  in  the  creeds  ever  so  great  the  union 
would  nevertheless  be  legal.  The  General  Assembly  and  a 
majority  of  the  presbyteries,  are,  by  the  express  provisions 
of  the  Constitution,  given  the  power  to  "amend  or  change" 
the  Confession  of  Faith.  Con.,  Sec.  60.  They  may  change 
every  doctrine  and  every  word.  It  is  but  an  ordinary,  legis- 
lative mode  of  amendment  to  substitute  one  paper  for  an- 
other. 

If  it-  be  objected  that  the  union  involves  substituting  the 
Presbyterian  Constitution  for  that  of  our  own,  a  complete 
reply  is  that  the  Assembly,  with  the  concurrence  of  a  majority 
of  the  presbyteries,  can,  under  the  Constitution,  "amend  or 
change"  the  Constitution  (Con.,  Sec.  60)  and  the  power  is 
unlimited.  Who  makes  the  union  so  far  as  our  church  is 
concerned?  The  Assembly  and  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries. 
W'ho  made  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Constitution? 
The  General  Assembly  and  a  majority  of  the  presbyteries. 
"Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay?"  They  exercise 
this  amending  and  changing  power  but  slightly  when  they 
substitute  for  our  Confession  one  which  is  in  substance  the 
same  and  v/hich  differs  only  in  the  mode  of  statement,  and 
substitute  for  our  Constitution  one  embodying  the  same  systeiTk- 
of  government  diffenng  only  in  a  few  minor  details. 

Our  Constitution  also  gives  to  the  General  Assembly,  even 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  presbyteries,  power  "to  receive 
under  its  jurisdiction  other  ecclesiastical  bodies  whose  organi- 
zation is  conformed  to  the  doctrine  and  order  of  this  church ; 
to  authorize  synods  and  presbyteries  to  exercise  similar  power 
in  receiving  bodies  suited  to  become  constituents  of  those 
courts,  and  lying  within  their  geographical  bounds  respective- 
ly." Con.,  Sec.  43.  Two  fundamental  principles  of  consoli- 
dation are  recognized  in  this  provision.  One  is,  that  other 
denominations,  wholly  or  in  part,  may  in  one  body  and  not 
as  individuals  merely,  be  united  with  our  own.     The  other  is, 

22 


that  the  General  Assembly  is  to  determine  whether  such  an 
union  shall  take  place.  It  may  be  argued,  however,  that  the 
provision  quoted  gives  our  Assembly  power  only  to  receive 
another  denomination  into  our  church  but  no  power  to  carry 
our  church  into  another  denomination.  But  when  two  de- 
nominations, identical  in  creed  and  government,  by  mutual 
agreement  unite  as  entireties,  it  is  mere  sticking  in  the  bark 
to  discuss  the  question  as  to  which  one  joins  the  other.  The 
truth  is  neither,  in  the  sense  intended,  joins  the  other.  The 
material  fact  is  that  they  get  together  and  the  name  by  which 
the  transaction  is  called  is  wholly  immaterial.  And  it  matters 
not  whether  this  identity  of  creed  and  government  existed 
before  the  union  was  contemplated,  was  previously  created 
for  the  purposes  of  union,  or  was  created  in  the  same  action 
which  consummates  the  union  and  as  part  of  the  union  plan. 
In  our  case,  so  far  as  substance  is  concerned,  it  existed  be- 
fore any  steps  towards  union  were  taken. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  1844  divided  that  church  into  two  denominations.  North 
and  South,  and  assigned  to  each  a  share  in  the  church 
property.  Litigation  over  the  property  ensued  in  which  it 
was  contended  that  the  Conference  had  no  power  to  divide 
the  church.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the 
case  of  Smith  vs.  Swormstedt,  16  Howard  288,  decided  that 
it  did  have  the  implied  power  to  do  so.  The  power  to  con- 
solidate seems  to  us  less  doubtful  than  the  power  to  divide. 

The  power  to  consolidate  with  other  denominations  has 
been  repeatedly  recognized  and  exercised  among  religious  de- 
nominations. Notable  instances  are  the  unions  of  the  New 
School  Presbyterian  Church,  North,  with  the  Old  School 
North,  and  the  New  School  South  with  the  Old  School  South. 
The  power  has  been  recognized  in  our  denomination  from 
its  very  inception.  Four  times,  in  1810  to  1813,  it  was  done 
by  Cumberland  Presbytery,  then  the  highest  court  of  the 
church,  and  ten  times  by  the  General  Assembly,  beginning  in 
i860  and  coming  down  to  date.  Four  times  has  the  Assem- 
bly prior  to  1903  and  again  in  1903  acted  on  the  assumption 
of  such  a  power  by  appointing  committees  to  devise,  if  pos- 
sible, a  basis  for  union  with  other  denominations.  It  has 
thus    repeatedly,    by   implication,    construed   our   Constitution. 

23 


An  implied  construction  is  as  effectual  as  an  express  one.  As 
the  highest  court  of  the  church  it  has  jurisdiction  to  determine 
its  own  constitutional  powers  just  as  the  State  Supreme 
Courts  have  the  power  to  determine  theirs.  Such  decision  is, 
as  we  shall  show,  conclusive  on  civil  courts.  The  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Church  in  1820  and  1878  divided  the  church 
by  creating  separate  denominations  in  Canada.  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  cited  above  say : 
"These  instances,  together  with  the  present  division,  in  1844, 
furnished  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  the  eminent  and  ex- 
perienced men  of  this  church,  in  the  several  Conferences,  of 
the  power  claimed  which,  if  the  question  was  otherwise  doubt- 
ful, should  be  regarded  as  decisive  in  its  favor." 

In  1856  the  Associate  Church  and  the  Associate  Reformed 
Church,  through  their  highest  courts,  their  synods,  agreed  on 
a  basis  of  union  ratified  by  a  majority  of  presbyteries,  in- 
volving a  surrender  of  the  name  of  the  former,  and  partly 
adjusting  the  creed  of  the  united  church.  Certain  members 
of  the  Associate  Synod  protested  against  the  union,  and  met 
in  synodical  meeting  claiming  to  be  the  synod  of  the  Associate 
Church.  Clarion  Presbytery  recognized  the  authority  of  this 
synod.  Unity  congregation,  of  that  presbytery,  divided,  and 
fifty-eight  out  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-one,  refusing  to 
recognize  the  union,  sued  for  possession  and  control  of 
the  church  house.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  changes  in  name 
and  creed  were  made  in  the  same  way  that  ours  are  being 
made,  by  incorporating  them  in  the  basis  of  union.  It  was 
contended  that  the  Associate  Synod  and  presbyteries  had  no 
power  to  thus  change  its  creed  and  to  enter  into  the  union 
and  that  the  presbyteries  had  not  ratified  the  agreement  by  the 
necessary  majority.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  two 
churches  had  the  power  to  unite;  that  "union  among  churches 
is  a  perfectly  legitimate  part  of  their  purpose  and  their  free- 
dom, and  mutual  concession  is  part  of  the  natural  law  of  it 
and  we  cannot  direct  nor  limit  it;"  that  the  right  of  churchi;= 
to  unite  had  been  recognized  and  exercised  in  Europe  and 
America  since  1758;  that  of  the  terms  of  the  union  "tht 
presbyteries  and  synods  were  the  constitutional  judges;"  that 
the  church  did  not  forfeit  the  right  of  property  by  its  creedal 
and  governmental  changes  or  change  in  name ;  and  that  the 

24 


party  recognizing  the  union  could  hold  the  property  as  against 
the  party  renouncing  it.     Watson  vs.  McGiimis,  41   Penn.  9. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  Brethren  forbade  any  change 
in  their  Confession  of  Faith.  The  General  Conference  under- 
took to  amend  the  Constitution  so  as  to  permit  a  revision  of 
the  Confession  and  at  the  same  time  to  revise  the  Confession. 
The  same  committee  prepared  the  new  Constitution  and  the 
new  Confession,  the  same  Conference  adopted  both,  both  were 
ratified  by  the  membership  at  the  same  election  and  both  wer-.-. 
proclaimed  by  the  next  Conference.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
Indiana  says : 

"We  know  no  reason  why  the  question  of  revision  of  Con- 
fession of  Faith  might  not  be  submitted  with  a  proposition  to 
amend  the  Constitution.  The  question  of  construing  the  Con 
stitution  of  1841  was  purely  for  the  church  authorities.  Thc^v 
determined  that  both  questions  could  be  submitted  together, 
and  the  Conference  of  i88g  have  adjudged  that  this  was 
legally  done.  This  being  a  purely  ecclesiastical  matter,  we 
have  no  power  to  review  their  decision.  It  is  binding  upcm 
us  as  well  as  upon  the  members  of  the  church."  Lamb  vs. 
Cain,  14  L.  R.  A.  529.  The  court  further  held  that  those 
who  adhered  to  the  amended  Constitution  and  Confession  of 
Faith  constituted  the  church  "while  those  who  refused  to  do 
so  must  be  regarded  as  seceders." 

Litigation  over  church  property  arose  out  of  the-  same 
church  union  in  the  states  of  Illinois,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Oregon 
and  Pennsylvania.  In  all  of  them  except  Michigan  \\'±;  the 
result  the  same  as  in  Lamb  vs.  Cain  in  Indiana.  One  of  the 
cases  in  Ohio  was  decided  by  the  United  States  C.'urt  .")f 
Appeals — Judges  Lurton,  Clark  and  Severens.  In  all  the  cases 
except  the  Michigan  case  was  it  held  that  the  civil  court  could 
not  go  behind  the  decision  of  the  church  court  as  to  the 
latter's  constitutional  jurisdiction  and  the  legality  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical proceeding.  Such,  also,  was  the  holding  is  to  all 
ecclesiastical  questions  in  Watson  vs.  Jones,  13  Wallace 
(Supreme  Court  of  United  States)  679.  In  that  case  tjie 
court  says  "whenever  the  question  of  discipline  or  fnith  or 
ecclesiastical  rule,  custom  or  law  has  been  decided  by  the 
highest  of  these  church  judicatories  to  which  the  mattei-  has 
been   carried,  the  legal  tribunals   must   accept   such    Isrisicn 

25 


as  final."  The  court  cite  to  the  same  efifect  cases  in  Ken- 
tucky, South  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  Missouri  and  Pennsyl- 
vania. Since  then  the  Supreme  Courts  of  Tennessee  and 
Texas  have  held  the  same  way.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  further  say :  "We  concede  at  the  outset  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  English  courts  is  otherwise.  .  .  .  And  we 
can  very  well  understand  how  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  Eng- 
land, who  is  in  his  office,  in  a  large  sense  the  head  and  repre- 
sentative of  the  established  church,  who  controls  very  largely 
the  church  patronage  and  whose  judicial  decision  may  be  and 
not  unfrequently  is,  invoked  in  cases  of  heresy  and  ecclesi- 
astical contumacy,  .should  feel,  even  in  dealing  with  a  dis- 
senting church,  but  little  delicacy  in  grappling  with  the  most 
abstruse  problems  of  theological  controversy,  or  in  construing 
the  instruments  which  those  churches  have  adopted  as  their 
rules  .of  government  or  inquiring  into  their  customs  and 
usages."  The  court  then  proceeds  to  show  how  different  it 
is  in  this  country  Vv^here  church  and  state  are  completely 
separated. 

The  case  of  Trustees  vs.  Harris,  TZ  Conn.  217  was  another 
contest  over  real  estate.  Bishop  Waldert,  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  had  consolidated  three  congregations  in 
Norwich.  His  power  to  do  so  was  denied.  The  court  held 
that  no  civil  court  had  the  power  to  pass  upon  that  question ; 
that  by  making  the  consolidation  the  bishop  had  impliedly 
decided  that  he  had  the  power  to  do  so  and  that  this  decision, 
being  by  an  ecclesiastical  court  on  an  ecclesiastical  matter, 
whether  right  or  wrong,  was  binding  upon  every  member  of 
the  church  and  upon  the  civil  courts.  It  was,  therefore,  de- 
creed that  all  of  the  property  of  the  three  congregations 
passed  to  the  trustees  of  the  consolidated  church. 

Our  church  was  not  organized  for  the  sake  of  separate 
denominational  existence.  On  the  contrary,  such  separate 
existence  was  the  one  thing  which  our  founders  deeply  de- 
plored, and  strove  years  and  years,  first  to  prevent  and  then 
to  terminate  by  reunion.  They  only  asked  the  privilege  of 
believing  and  teaching,  within  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the 
Westminster  Confession  scripturally  interpreted,  and  they 
were  indifferent  as  to  the  mere  form  of  the  interpretation. 

Our  committee  on  union  with  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
26 


the  United  States,  in  1867,  proposed  as  the  basis  of  union, 
the  Presbyterian  name  and  form  of  government,  and,  aher- 
natively,  our  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Presbyterian  Confes- 
sion modified,  or  a  new  one  based  on  the  Westminster.  The 
Assembly  of  1868  "accepted"  the  committee's  report  and 
thanked  its  members  for  their  "ability  and  faithfulness." 
Throughout  our  whole  history  we  have  manifested  a  com- 
parative indifference  to  our  name  and  the  formal  statement 
of  our  creed,  but  a  consuming  desire  to  increase  to  a  great 
host,  by  reunion  as  well  as  otherwise,  those  who  should  be- 
lieve and  practice  and  teach  its  doctrines.  Can  it  be  then  that 
reunion  is  contrary  to  our  constitution  when  it  accomplishes 
so  largely  the  great  purposes  of  our  existence?  Can  it  be 
that  the  church  abandons  herself  and  forfeits  her  property, 
by  such  a  realization  of  her  fondest  hopes  and  most  prayerful 
endeavors?  No;  Ewing,  King  and  McAdow  were  not  traitors 
to  a  cause  when  they  offered  to  reunite  with  the  mother 
church  on  the  basis  of  the  old  Book  scripturally  interpreted. 
Beard,  Bird,  Burney,  Poindexter  and  Woods,  and  the  General 
Assembly  which  approved  their  report,  were  not  revolution- 
ists— did  not  offer  to  leave  the  church  and  join  the  Presby- 
terians, when  they  offered  to  take  the  Presbyterian  name 
and  Constitution  and  the  modified  Presbyterian  Confession. 
The  view  that  the  General  Assembly,  a  majority  of  the  pres- 
byteries and  all  who  do  not  rebel  against  their  action,  are 
now  about  to  leave  the  church  and  join  the  Presbyterians  is 
of  course  a  view  of  the  matter  which,  in  the  exigencies  and 
zeal  of  debate  is  to  be  expected,  but  it  is  a  view  that  will 
vanish  with  the  smoke  of  the  battle. 

Opponents  of  union  cite  cases  as  deciding  that  a  church 
forfeits  the  title  to  its  houses  of  worship  if  it  changes  its  creed 
from  what  it  was  when  the  property  was  acquired.  It  has 
been  so  held  in  two  states,  viz. :  Iowa  and  Michigan,  but  these 
cases  arose  in  churches  which  had  no  constitutional  power  to 
change  their  creeds.  Against  these  stand,  however,  cases  in 
a  number  of  states  and  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  holding  that  as  to  no  kind  of  church  is  this  the  law. 
Among  them  are  Watson  vs.  Jones,  13  Wallace  679;  Nance  vs. 
Busby,  91  Tenn.  303 ;  Baptist  Church  vs.  Forte,  93  Texas  231 ; 
Brundage  vs.  Deardorf,  92  Fed.  Rep.  214,  and  cases  therein 

27 


cited.  The  well  settled  law  is  that  if  one  gives  propertj'  to 
a  congregation  and  specifies  in  the  deed  that  it  is  to  be  used 
to  propagate  some  named  creed,  a  trust  to  that  effect  is 
created  and  that  a  court  of  equity  will  by  injunction  prevent 
the  use  of  the  property  to  propagate  an  antagonistic  doctrine. 
The  same  principle  would  apply  if  the  deed  specified,  as  the 
doctrine  to  be  taught,  the  doctrine  of  a  particular  denomina- 
tion as  it  existed  at  the  date  of  the  deed.  We  do  not  suppose 
a  single  title  exists  in  our  church  where  the  creed  is  specified 
in  either  of  these  modes.  But  it  is  everywhere  decided,  ex- 
cept in  the  states  of  Iowa  and  Michigan,  that  if  the  deed  does 
not  specify  the  doctrine  to  be  taught  but  simply  conveys  the 
property  for  the  use  of  a  congregation  of  a  particular  de- 
nomination, no  such  trust  is  created,  and  that  no  change  in 
the  creed  will  affect  the  title  to  the  property.  As  before 
stated,  the  Supreme  Courts  of  Iowa  and  Michigan  have  held 
to  the  contrary,  but  the  Michigan  decision  (Bear  vs.  Hensley, 
98  Mich.  279)  arose  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
Brethren  which  expressly  forbade  any  change  in  the  creed, 
and  the  Iowa  decision  (Mt.  Zion  Baptist  Church  vs.  Whit- 
more,  83  Iowa  147)  involved  a  Baptist  Church.  The  Baptists, 
Congregationalists  and  Christians,  have,  as  we  understand 
their  government,  no  Constitution,  as  we  have,  expressly 
authorizing  a  change  of  creed.  The  same  absence  of  express 
power  exists  in  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  as  we  gather 
the  facts  from  the  House  of  Lords  opinion.  We  might  con- 
cede that  as  to  such  churches  the  law  is  as  the  Michigan  and 
*  Iowa  courts  and  the  House  of  Lords  decided ;  although  the 
overwhelming  weight  of  authority  is  the  other  way,  still  it 
would  have  no  application  to  our  church.  Where  one  conveys 
property  to  a  congregation  under  a  presbyterial  form  of  gov- 
ernment the  case  is  essentially  different.  The  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  and  other  courts  so  decide.  The  Con- 
stitution expressly  gives  the  General  Assembly  and  the  pres- 
byteries the  power  to  amend  or  change  the  confession.  Who- 
ever conveys  property  for  the  use  of  a  congregation  in  such 
a  denomination  does  so  with  full  knowledge  that  its  creed  is 
changeable  and  must  be  presumed  to  intend,  unless  his  deed 
provides  otherwise,  that  the  church  shall  use  the  property  in 
any   way   it   may,   under   its   constitution   and   laws.      He   im- 

28 


pliedly  consents  to  any  change  in  creed  which  may  be  lawfully 
made.  No  case  has  been  cited  in  England  or  America  hold- 
ing that  in  such  a  church  and  under  such  a  Constitution 
change  in  creed  works  a  forfeiture  of  property,  and  the  propo- 
sition is  so  unreasonable  that  we  do  not  hesitate  to  state  that 
no  such  decision  can  be  found. 

No  court  has  with  more  emphasis  and  clearness,  than  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Texas,  shown  the  absurdity  of  holding  that 
a  church  may  change  its  creed  until  it  becomes  a  property 
owner  but  the  very  moment  it  acquires  real  estate  its  con- 
stitutional power  to  change  is  gone  except  on  pain  of  for- 
feiture. Such  a  doctrine  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsyl- 
vania says  forbids,  though  it  cannot  prevent,  both  the  decay 
of  error  and  the  development  of  truth.  The  Primitive  Bap- 
tists of  Nashville  invoked  it,  we  are  glad  to  say  unsuccess- 
fully, in  Nance  vs.  Busby,  to  perpetuate  forever  their  anti- 
quated custom  of  "foot  washing"  and  their  amazing  doctrine 
that  "missionary  undertakings"  are  unscriptural.  If  the  de- 
cision of  five  out  of  seven  law  lords  in  England  is  per- 
mitted to  stand,  property  valued  at  about  $65,000,000,  must  be 
used  forever  to  propagate  the  political  and  ecclesiastical 
heresy  of  church  establishment  and  the  theological  enormity 
of  Predestination.  But  it  will  not  stand.  It  overrules  the 
Scottish  courts.  It  has  aroused  a  storm  of  indignation 
throughout  England  and  Scotland.  The  House  of  Commons 
has  the  power  to  veto  it,  and  we  confidently  predict  that 
when  that  house  meets  six  months  hence  it  will  exercise  the 
power.  But  in  no  event,  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  says,  can  a  decision  in  England,  where  state  and 
church  are  united,  have  any  weight  as  authority  in  this  coun- 
try. 

In  conclusion  we  i,ay :  Union  involves  four  steps ;  change 
of  name,  change  in  statement  of  creed,  change  in  statement 
and  minor  changes  in  substance  of  the  organic  law,  and  con- 
solidation of  membership  and  judicatories.  Each  of  these 
steps  the  Assembly  and  presbyteries  have  the  power  to  take. 
They  have  been  taken  or  are  being  taken  in  a  constitutional 
way.  The  consolidated  church,  as  the  legal  successor  of  the 
two  denominations,  will  be  legally  entitled  to  all  of  the 
property  formerly  owned  by  either. 

29 


SEPARATION  OF  THE  RACES. 


Under  the  laws  governing  the  Presbyterian  Church  no  pres- 
bytery or  synod  can  occupy  part  of  the  territory  of  another 
presbytery  or  synod.  Some  difficulty  has  been  experienced 
with  this  rule,  growing  out  of  the  existence  of  churches  of 
colored  persons  and  their  ministers.  It  was  not  possible  to 
fix  a  territory  in  which  all  the  churches  should  be  attended 
by  white  people  and  all  the  ministers  be  white,  or  a  territory 
in  which  all  the  churches  should  be  attended  by  colored 
people  and  all  the  ministers  be  colored.  In  order  to  put  the 
ministers  and  churches  of  the  white  race  into  one  presbytery 
or  synod,  and  the  ministers  and  churches  of  the  colored  race 
into  one  presbytery  or  synod,  territorial  lines  would  have  to 
be  disregarded  and  a  presbytery  composed  of  ministers  and 
churches  of  the  white  race  occupy  the  same  territory,  or  a 
part  of  the  same  territory,  as  a  presbytery  having  under  its 
charge  churches  and  ministers  of  the  colored  race:  Now,  in 
order  to  accomplish  this,  the  following  was  proposed  by  the 
Union  Committee : 

"It  is  recommended  that  such  a  change  be  made  in  the  form 
of  government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  as  will  allow  additional  or  separate  presby- 
teries or  synods  to  be  organized  in  exceptional  cases,  wholly 
or  in  part  within  the  territorial  bounds  of  existing  presby- 
teries or  synods  respectively,  for  a  particular  race  or  nation- 
ality,  if   desired   by  such   race   or   nationality." 

It  is  conceded  that  ministers  and  churches  of  the  colored 
race  may  under  such  a  change  in  the  law  ask  for  the  erection 
of  a  separate  presbytery  having  in  charge  only  colored 
churches  and  ministers,  yet  it  is  doubted  whether  churches 
and  ministers  of  the  white  race  can  ask  for  a  presbytery  or 
synod  which  will  be  exclusively  composed  of  white  churches 
and  ministers.  The  ground  for  such  doubt  is  not  readily 
perceived. 

30 


The  purpose  of  the  change  being  to  allow  a  separation, 
there  is  no  more  reason  why  the  churches  and  ministers  of 
the  colored  race  shall  have  the  exclusive  right  to  initiate  the 
movement  than  there  is  to  argue  that  the  churches  and  min- 
isters of  the  white  race  shall  have  the  sole  right  to  initiate 
the  movement.  The  right  being  clearly  giyen  to  organize  two 
presbyteries  or  two  synods  occupying  in  whole  or  in  part  the 
same  territory — one  presbytery  or  synod  to  be  for  the  white 
race,  and  the  other  presbytery  or  synod  to  be  for  the  colored 
race — no  distinction,  either  in  language  or  reason,  can  be 
drawn  between  the  right  of  one  race  and  the  right  of  the  other 
to  ask  for  such  separate  establishment.  The  language  "par- 
ticular race''  obviously  as  much  refers  to  the  white  race  as 
it  does  to  the  colored  race. 

A  simple  analogy  occurs.  The  Fifteenth  Amendment  pro- 
vides :  "The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote 
shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by 
any  state  on  account  of  race,  color  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude." 

Now,  we  all  know  that  this  was  designed  to  prevent  the 
denial  of  the  right  of  suffrage  to  persons  of  the  colored  race, 
but  the  law,  like  all  laws,  upon  being  passed  is  necessarily  and 
properly  put  in  general  terms ;  so  that  no  one  would  deny 
that  if  one  of  the  Southern  states  were  to  come  under  the 
control  of  colored  voters  it  would  be  incompetent  for  such 
state  to  pass  any  law  depriving  white  people  of  the  right  to 
vote.  The  amendment  would  apply  in  that  case  as  well  as  in 
the  other  case. 

The  illustration  seems  to  us  to  be  very  much  weaker  than 
the  case  before  us.  In  our  case  the  purpose  was  to  allow  a 
separation  and  to  permit  that  to  be  done  which  was  necessary 
to  be  done  to  accomplish  a  separation,  namely,  the  organiza- 
tion of  presbyteries  or  synods  which  should  be  in  whole  or  in 
part  within  the  territorial  bounds  of  another  presbytery  or 
synod.  The  language  "if  desired  by  such  race  or  nationality" 
would,  considering  the  history  of  the  case,  be  much  more 
certainly  applicable  to  the  white  race  than  to  the  colored  race. 
It  was  on  account  of  the  desire  of  the  white  race  to  have 
separate  presbyteries  or  synods  that  the  change  was  proposed. 
It  was  expected  that  it  would  be  the  white  race  which  would 

31 


wish  to  organize  the  separate  presbytery  or  synod.  How, 
therefore,  it  can  be  now  argued  that  the  desire  must  come 
from  the  colored  race,  when  it  was  well  known  that  it  existed 
especially  in  the  white  race,  is  not  perceptible.  The  language 
of  the  Buffalo  Assembly  concerning  separate  presbyteries 
carries  out  this  view.  Thus,  speaking  of  the  amendment,  it 
says :  "Such  an  amendment,  if  adopted,  would  give  equal 
liberty  to  white  and  colored  churches  in  cases  in  which  a 
separate  presbyterial  organization  was  deemed  wise  and  neces- 
sary." Now,  there  cannot  be  equal  liberty  to  white  and 
colored  churches  if  one  of  them  only  can  ask  to  have  a  sepa- 
rate establishment. 

The  amendment  recommended  by  the  Special  Committee 
to  the  Buffalo  Assembly,  and  which  was  adopted  by  that 
body,  is  as  follows :  "In  the  exceptional  cases  a  presbytery 
may  be  organized  within  the  boundaries  of  existing  presby- 
teries, in  the  interests  of  ministers  and  churches  speaking 
other  than  the  English  language,  or  of  those  of  a  particular 
race,  but  in  no  case  without  their  consent."  This  was  after- 
wards amended  so  as  to  provide  for  separate  synods  also. 

In  one  respect,  as  least,  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
Special  Committee  of  the  Buffalo  Assembly  may  be  said  to  be 
an  improvement  on  recommendation  No.  i  of  the  joint  com- 
mittee, for  it  gives  to  the  judicatory  by  whose  legislative 
action  the  separate  presbytery  or  synod  may  be  organized, 
the  right  to  begin  the  proceeding  necessary  to  effect  the  sepa- 
ration without  awaiting  a  request  from  either  race.  In  other 
words  its  language  confers  upon  such  judicatory  authority 
to  inaugurate  the  movement  for  separation,  and  to  determine 
the  necessity  therefor,  though  the  power  to  consummate  it 
cannot  be  exercised  without  the  consent  of  the  race  in  whose 
interest  it  is  inaugurated.  To  illustrate,  the  General  As- 
sembly could  not  consummate  the  organization  of  a  separate 
synod  in  the  interest  of  the  white  race  in  a  certain  territory 
without  the  consent  of  the  white  race  in  that  territory,  nor 
in  the  interest  of  the  colored  race  without  the  consent  of  the 
colored  race.  The  evident  purpose  is  to  prevent  a  separation 
being  forced  on  Northern  presbyteries  or  synods  where  the 
white  people  in  that  synod  or  presbytery  might  not  want  a 
separation. 

32 


There  is,  however,  in  the  language  of  the  amendment,  noth- 
ing that  will  interfere  with  the  right  of  either  race  to  take 
the  initiative,  as  either  may,  by  memorial  or  other  proper 
means,  carry  the  matter  before  the  governing  judicatory  for 
it3  action. 

Upon  the  other  hand,  the  language  of  recommendation 
No.  I  apparently  contemplates  that  in  no  case  would  the 
governing  judicatory  be  authorized  to  act,  without  first  receiv- 
ing from  one  of  the  races,  some  expression  of  their  desire 
for  the  creation  of  the  separate  presbytery  or  synod. 

It  may  be  asked,  "What  is  meant  by  the  expression  'Ex- 
ceptional Cases?'"  We  might  imagine  the  existence  of  many 
conditions  which  would  constitute  an  exceptional  case ;  but 
where  it  is  found  that  a  presbytery  or  synod  embraces  terri- 
tory containing  both  white  and  colored  ministers  and  churches 
that  fact  alone,  considering  the  friction  likely  to  result  from 
the  affiliation  of  the  two  races,  and  the  probability  of  dis- 
turbances growing  out  of  anything  like  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  the  negroes  at  social  equality  with  the  whites,  would, 
prima  facie,  constitute  an  "exceptional"  case  in  the  meaning 
of  the  new  law.  Indeed,  one  of  the  first  things  to  be  done, 
following  the  consummation  of  union,  will  be  the  arranging 
of  the  presbyterial  and  synodical  boundaries  to  meet  the 
changed  conditions.  Thus  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  new 
era,  the  matter  of  the  presbyterial  and  synodical  segregation 
of  the  two  races  can  and  will  be  adjusted  without  friction  or 
disturbance. 

It  is  true  there  is  nothing  in  the  proposed  amendment  that 
will  exclude  presbyteries  of  the  colored  race  from  representa- 
tion in  the  General  Assembly  of  the  re-united  church,  but 
the  affiliation  resulting  therefrom  will  be  casual,  and  too  re- 
mote to  be  conducive  of  social  equality,  occasion  disquietude, 
or  even  produce  actual  contact. 

The  plan  of  separate  presbyteries  and  synods  here  proposed 
has  long  been  in  vogue  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  we  have  yet  to  hear  of  any  embarrassment  resulting  to 
that  church  growing  out  of  its  relations  with  the  colored  race. 


33 


THE     PROSPECTIVE    STATUS     OF    THE    "UNDER- 
GRADUATE" MINISTERS. 


The  basis  of  union  secures  for  all  ministers  of  our  church 
full  ecclesiastical  standing  and  all  the  formal  recognition  in 
the  united  church,  which  is  accorded  them  in  our  church  now. 
The  second  of  the  Concurrent  Declarations,  which  ought  to 
meet  every  reasonable  demand,  reads  as  follows :  "All  the 
ministers  and  churches  included  in  the  two  denominations 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  same  standing  in  the  united  church 
which  they  have  held  in  their  respective  connections  up  to 
the  consummation  of  the  reunion.'.'  This  insures  for  all  min- 
isters of  our  church  who  are  in  good  and  regular  standing  at 
the  time  of  the  consummation  of  the  union,  equal  ecclesiastical 
standing  and  recognition  with  the  most  honored  and  most 
widely  known  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

There  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  practices  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  to  warrant  the  assumption  that  our  ministers 
"who  have  never  rubbed  their  backs  against  a  college  wall" — 
to  borrow  the  inelegant  phrase  of  another — will  be  dis- 
criminated against.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  very  few 
ministers  in  active  service  to  whom  this  description  applies. 
Not  one  of  our  ministers  need  feel  that  the  door  of  oppor- 
tunity to  service  will  be  closed  against  him.  A  larger  per 
cent  than  most  of  us  think,  of  the  active  ministers  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  would  be  greatly  embarrassed  if  they 
were  required  to  produce  college  and  seminary  diplomas. 
They  do  not  possess  them.  That  church  has  succeeded  better 
than  some  others  in  maintaining  a  high  standard  of  minis- 
terial education,  but  its  practice  has  been  to  give  the  fullest 
recognition  to  ministerial  efficiency  regardless  of  the  processes 
through  which  such  efficiency  may  have  been  acquired.  It 
would  be  easy  to  name  very  efficient  Presbyterian  ministers 
in  all  sections  of  the  country  whose  preparation  for  the  min- 

34 


istry  has  not  squared  in  every  particular  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  Constitution.  After  all,  the  final  test  of  stand- 
ing in  the  ministry  in  that  church,  as  in  our  own,  is  not  the 
possession  of  a  diploma  or  two,  or  the  right  to  attach  a  string 
of  terminal  initials  to  one's  name,  but,  in  high  places  as  well 
as  in  low  places,  it  is  efficiency. 

It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  cite  numerous  instances  in 
which  men  who  were  rendering  only  mediocre  service  in  our 
church  have  gone  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  have 
stood  in  far  more  representative  positions  and  rendering  much 
wider  service  than  would  have  been  possible  if  they  had  re- 
mained with  us.  Few  comparatively  of  these  have  been  col- 
lege-bred men.  Some  of  the  great  pulpits  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  are  bemg  filled  by  them.  In  the  most  striking 
instances  of  this  sort  the  ordination  of  these  men  had  been, 
even  with  us,  rather  "extraordinary  cases."  It  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  our  own  standard  of  ministerial  education  is 
not  lowered  every  time  a  prominent  candidate  for  ordination, 
who  has  not  met  the  requirements,  appears  upon  the  scene. 

It  is  not  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  there  is  scarcely 
another  church  in  America  in  which  it  is  so  difficult  to  achieve 
and  maintain  success  in  the  ministry  as  in  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  Church.  Account  for  it  as  we  may,  the  fact  is 
nevertheless  true  that  the  opportunities  for  ministerial  service 
open  to  uneducated  men  are  comparatively  few  and  these  are 
becoming  less  numerous  every  day.  Our  more  prominent  con- 
gregations now  insist  very  strenuously  upon  adequate  educa- 
tional preparation,  as  well  as  spiritual  qualification,  for  those 
whom  they  invite  to  their  pulpits. 

Opportunities  for  ministerial  service  in  our  church  are  re- 
stricted. Outside  the  country  and  village  congregations  the 
field  is  comparatively  small.  Though  we  have  very  nearly 
reached  the  centennial  anniversary  of  our  organization  and  we 
occupy  territory  in  which  scores  of  cities  have  sprung  up, 
we  are  strangers  in  the  greater  number  of  these  cities.  In 
a  few  we  have  struggling,  hard-pressed  congregations.  In 
cities  of  100,000  and  upward  our  chief  effort  seems  to  be  to 
"hold  our  own."  Really  in  no  proper  sense  of  the  word  are 
we  prosecuting  a  mission  work  in  cities  that  is  really  mis- 
sionary in  its  character.     Our  part,  therefore,  in  solving  the 

35 


vexed  problems  which  these  congested  centers  of  population 
present,  is  infinitesimal.  Among  the  vast  hordes  of  for- 
eigners who  are  coming  to  our  shores  we  are  practically  un- 
known. In  a  small  way  a  very  humble  beginning  has  been 
made  in  work  among  our  3,000,000  of  American  highlanders. 
From  many  great  fields  of  religious  effort  the  Cumberland 
Presbyterian  minister  is  practically  excluded.  Over  against 
this  condition  of  things  there  should  be  set  out  plainly  before 
us  the  great  variety  of  effort  in  which  we  shall  be  glad  to 
share  after  the  consummation  of  Presbyterian  union.  This 
varied  effort  among  all  classes  and  conditions  of  men,  in  the 
farming  communities,  in  the  villages,  in  the  great  cities — 
both  "uptown"  and  "downtown,"  among  the  vast  destitute 
mountain  people,  in  behalf  of  the  millions  of  foreigners, 
makes  it  possible  for  the  reunited  church  to  use  every  atom  of 
talent  that  offers  itself  for  service.  One  witness  that  we  have 
to  these  facts  is  the  action  of  the  Presbyterian  General  As- 
sembly of  1903  in  providing  for  the  work  and  licensure  of 
"local  evangelists,"  who,  after  four  years  of  approved  service 
in  the  ministry,  ma}'  become  eligible  to  ordination  though 
they  may  not  have  "rubbed  their  backs  against  college  walls." 


36 


CONCLUSION. 


ANIJ    AFTER    THE   UNION,    WHAT? 

Merely  increased  activity  and  usefulness,  that  is  all.  Union 
will  not  affect  in  any  way  hurlfully  any  zealous  Cumberland 
Presbyterian,  individual  or  congregation.  Preachers  will  go 
on  preaching  the  same  doctrines  they  have  always  preached, 
and  will  continue  seeking  the  salvation  of  the  lost  just  as  they 
have  been  doing,  the  only  difference  being  that  more  fellow- 
members  of  the  same  church  will  be  in  prayerful  sympathy 
with  them  than  before.  In  a  few  instances  local  churches 
will  be  merged,  but  not  without  their  consent  and  never  until 
the  presbyteries  act.  In  most  of  our  denominational  territory 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  far  outnumber  the  Presbyterians 
with  whom  it  is  proposed  to  unite ;  and  the  control  of  the 
united  church  in  such  localities  will  not  even  "change  hands.'" 
Cumberland  Presbyterians  will  become  Presbyterians  in  name 
as  they  already,  since  the  revision,  are  Presbyterians  in  faith  ; 
but  former  Cumberland  Presbyterian  churches  can  continue 
to  employ  their  old  pastors  without  the  slightest  interference 
from  the  outside ;  and  former  Cumberland  Presbyterian  min- 
isters will  in  no  case  be  required  by  anybody  or  any  authority 
either  to  change  their  ecclesiastical  standing  or  pastoral 
charges.  The  same  members  will  constitute  the  churches  and 
church  sessions ;  the  same  pastors  and  elders,  with  a  few 
white  ministers  and  elders  from  the  Presbyterian  Church 
added,  will  compose  the  presbyteries  and  synods,  the  very 
names  of  the  churches,  presbyteries  and  synods  being  retained 
with  but  few  exceptions  along  the  northern,  western  and 
eastern  borders  of  the  denomination.  The  same  schools  will 
continue  to  live  and  grow ;  the  same  missions  and  missionaries 
will  be  supported,  except  where  co-operation  is  for  the  evident 
benefit  of  the  cause  of  religion ; — in  a  word  union  will  make 
no  important  change  that  is  not  for  mutual  advantage,  and 

37 


for  the  manifest  glory  of  God.  It  -.vill  require  no  emigra- 
tions and  call  for  no  immigrations.  No  compulsory  moving  is 
to  be  attempted,  and  no  humiliation  of  any  kind  is  to  be  suf- 
fered by  Cumberland  Presbyterian.  Changing  the  name  of  a 
house  does  not  mean  that  the  inmates  must  move  out  or  that 
others  unbidden  will  move  in. 

Union  will  call  for  the  removal  of  no  necessary  wheel  from 
any  church's  machinery — it  will  simply  take  away  hindering 
friction. 


38 


p:ndorsement  supplement 


The  following  names  have  Ijeen  received  since  the  foregoing  pages  went 
to  press: 

MINISTERS. 


J.  H. 
.Ino. 
L.  J. 
J.  B. 
M.  E 
S.  H. 
J.  A. 
L.N. 
W.  .1 


WoPFORD,  Denison,  Tex. 
T.  Price,  R.  R.  6,  Columbia,  Tenn. 
Coats,  South  McAlester,  I.  T. 

Latimer,  Benedict,  Kan. 
.  Gabard,  Santa  Fe,  Tenn. 

Buchanan,  Stephenville,  Tex. 

Ward,  Stanford,  Tex. 

.  Montgomery,  Louisiana,  Mo. 

.  Fisher,  San  Francisco.  Cal. 


F.  .1.  Stowe,  Lebanon,  Tenn. 
L.  B.  Gray,  West  Point,  Miss. 
W.  J.  Willis,  Bethany,  Mo. 
W.  D.  Wear,  Ft.  Worth,  Tex. 
.JosKHiius  Lathom,  Dexter,  Mo. 
W.  H.  BuNTiN,  Nesbit,  Miss. 
T.  N.  Hunt,  Clarendon,  Ark. 
K.  N.  Ai.i.EN,  Portland,  Gre. 


RULINC;   ELDERS. 


L.  M.  Rice,  Louisville,  Ky. 
E.  P.  .Jones,  South  McAlester,  I.  T. 
W.  G.  D.  Hinds,  South  McAlester,  I.  T. 
M.  H.  Braly,  South  McAlester,  I.  T. 
W.  .J.  Hopkins,  West  Point,  Miss. 
Warrie  Kilpatrick,  West  Point,  Miss. 
Chas.  E.  Freeman,  Alton,  111. 
J.  G.  Richmond,  College  Mound,  Mo. 
Dr.  J.  C.  McClurkin,  Elvansville,  Iiul. 
W.  B.  .Johnson,  Stamford,  Tox. 
M.  W.  Neal,  Louisville.  Ky. 


.James  White,  Stamford,  Tex. 

D.  E.  Wilson,  Nesbitt,  Mi.«s. 
B.  Mosely,  West  Point,  Miss. 

T.  M.  Mosely,  West  Point,  Miss. 

E.  E.  Beard,  I.ebanon,  Tenn. 
W.  I'i.  Settle,  Frankfort,  Ky. 
W.  A.  McRae,  College  Mound,  M< 
W.  P.  Black,  Crider,  Ky. 

L.  M.  BtiiE,  Stamford,  Tex. 
.J.  E.  Moody,  Stamford,  Tex. 
.L  H.  Merney.  Santa  Fe,  Tenn. 


39 


/2.,'2-%.0?- 


1^^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by~~^v-'<S-3\^^e'VA-V  \  c7.-WoN-\ 


Division 
Sec/ion 


